The Square Deal

The ongoing kerfuffle about Barack Obama and his controversial pastor made me realize something: Among intelligent people, there are two basic camps when it comes to race relations. The first group, consisting of most whites and conservative blacks, are uncomfortable talking about race for several reasons, including the fear that they’ll be labeled racist and the suspicion that blacks get preferential treatment because they’re black. The solution to racism, they believe, is to ignore it. They are for treating people equally regardless of their race, which means no affirmative action, no quotas, no special treatment. This, they believe, is the true fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream that people “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

The second group consists of most blacks and white liberals, and they can’t help but talk about race. For blacks themselves, it’s their very being, their very self-identity. What’s more, the solution they advocate is a full accounting of America’s past racism by means of affirmative action, slavery reparations, etc.

Thus, the cause of much tension in American race relations is the conflict between these two groups–one of which doesn’t want to talk about race and the other of which can’t stop talking about it.

This sort of ties in to what Shelby Steele wrote about in WSJ today. His interesting theory is that there are two kinds of black public figures: “challengers” (such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) who, similar to the second group mentioned above, “intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward,” and “bargainers,” who “make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America’s history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer’s race against him.” The bargainer allows himself to become a conduit of the white’s guilt being expunged by getting behind the black figure. This helps explain why black candidates (especially in the GOP) become overnight celebrities (think J.C. Watts). This is not to say, as Steele does, that being black is the main reason for their success. It is a big part of it, but Steele fails to realize that the main source of Obama’s appeal is his promise to end the endless political bickering that poisons so much of what Washington does.

Obama’s speech today was a mistake, I think, because by giving it he clearly identified himself with the second group, the “challengers.” The problem is that the more he talks about race, the more he becomes “the black candidate” and the more whites become uncomfortable with him. Of course, this plays right into Hillary’s hands, as it is exactly what the Clinton campaign tried to do in South Carolina.

So if Clinton and McCain are smart, they will try to figure out ways to make Obama talk about race. If Obama is smart, he will resist the temptation.

Senator Hillary Clinton got more mileage out of her “3am Call” commercial than just about any other candidate this cycle ever got out of any of their ads.  While her opponent, Senator Obama, tried to mock the message of the ad by asking if anyone thought he wouldn’t answer the phone, the hard truth is that the question raised is a legitimate one.  In a world where America’s enemies are real and ruthless, the role of commander-in-chief is the most important of the President’s duties.

With news headlines now dominated by declining stock prices, skyrocketing oil prices, home foreclosures, and political sex scandals, it is easy sometimes to forget that the dangers we face are not just economic.  As the most powerful and most prosperous nation in the world, we are and will remain a target for tyrants and terrorists trying to carve out an empire and a legacy in this world.  It is more important than ever that we have a President who understands this truth and will be ready to confront our foes.

For a civilized people, a strong national defense is a necessity, not a luxury.  Human history is brutal.  War, disease, famine, and lack are the norm, not the exception.  Over the millennia, far more governments have risen and fallen by the sword than by the ballot.  Yet the surge of freedom and liberty in the world during the last two centuries has caused many to forget how savage humankind can be.  Safely ensconced in our homes and offices in 21st century America, we too often take for granted the security we enjoy, even in the insecure environment of the Post 9/11 world.  However, if the last century was any indication, matters have only worsened.

The 20th century was the bloodiest in our mangled history.  We saw two world wars, a cold war, the attempted annihilation of Jews and Armenians by sitting governments that were considered world powers, and wholesale slaughter in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge.  Then just when some thought the fall of communism had given birth to a brave new utopian world, the west stood by and watched a brutally efficient attempt at genocide in Rwanda and reacted far too slowly when faced with “ethnic cleansing” in the Balkans.

Today, billions still suffer under the yoke of madmen who dominate their nations by bullets rather than by popular support.  Functioning in this paradigm, only the strong survive.

The war on terror will not be the final war we fight.  Nor will Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Read the news on any given day and count the number of times you see the words Iran, North Korea, and China.  Even if none of these nations engages in a conventional war with America, be assured that some other nation eventually will.  This is because it is the way of the world.  And it is because too often America disarms after winning a major conflict.  We instinctively choose to believe that the last war was the final war.   Until events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 shake us from our comfortable slumber.

War is more common to the human condition than is peace, and so it is that we must be strong.  For weakness invites attack.  Those who dream of empire start wars only when they think they can win.  There will always be a “most powerful nation in the world”.  The question we need to ask ourselves is who do we want to play that role?

For today and the foreseeable future, the answer to that question must be the United States.  For the last half-century America and her allies have preserved freedom and liberty.  As wars and rumors of wars continue to abound, it is we who will be called upon once more to draw the line in the sand.  It must be clear to all who would threaten our way of life that we will not allow ourselves to be bullied or blackmailed.  It must be equally clear to them that war with America is the last thing they should ever desire and something they should avoid at all costs.  That message must be delivered by a commander-in-chief with credibility.  One who foreign powers understand will be ready, to paraphrase Churchill, to “visit violence on those who would do us harm”.

In recent weeks, we’ve seen several people come under fire for comparing their political rivals to unsavory characters. There was the radio talk show host who likened Barack Obama’s oratorial skills to those of Adolf Hitler; I believe another one compared both Obama and FDR to Hitler. Then there’s this press release from Lou Barletta, who’s running for Congress against incumbent Paul Kanjorski. The latter is quoted as saying, “What David Duke was to civil rights, my opponent has done that with immigration. He’s used that issue the same way Duke used the civil rights issue.” Barletta, needless to say, takes exception to that.

And, of course, every so often some person or group compares some political policy to the Holocaust and ends up apologizing under pressure.

It’s getting to the point that no one can say that anything is like anything else anymore.

What the critics fail to realize (probably purposefully) is that in any comparison, there is a degree of similarity and a degree of dissimilarity. The statement “A is like B” is not the same as “A is identical to B,” because the former implies that A and B are dissimilar in some ways. So you can compare person X with Hitler, David Duke, or anyone else, and as long as you’re clear that you are not saying the two are identical–as long as you don’t include the bad qualities in the list of similarities–the comparison is perfectly valid.

Of course, the critics hope we don’t realize this and will continue to pounce on their opponents whenever they make these kinds of comparisons. Just another example of how our public discourse has run amok.